Browse
Search
Minutes - 20050926
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Minutes - 20050926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2008 2:31:05 PM
Creation date
8/13/2008 2:35:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/26/2005
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 09-26-2005-1
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2005\Agenda - 09-26-2005
Agenda - 09-26-2005-2
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2005\Agenda - 09-26-2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
request far a 1000-student high school in that location, the current costs and land costs were <br />higher than what was allocated. The School Board asked for $34 million dollars and the <br />Commissioners allocated around $30 million. The School Board then came up with an 800- <br />student school expandable to 1200. The Commissioners worked with them and gave them the <br />go ahead to do that utilizing an interlocal agreement which was quite comprehensive, had quite <br />a few stipulations in it and two addenda. It was a very complex negotiation since there were <br />some environmental stipulations as well that required $300,000 to go toward smart growth <br />principles. She said that environmental standards and parking standards were spelled out. <br />Chair Carey commended Commissioner Gordon for trying to explain what went into the <br />decision for the high school #3 including the location of it. There were a lot of different opinions <br />and they did the best they could in trying to arrive at a decision that would be most acceptable <br />to the School District and the Commissioners in the long run. He would like to commend <br />Commissioner Gordon on her efforts. <br />2. School Capacity Calculations. <br />Chair Carey stated that this is something that needs to be addressed in the next few <br />months since the determination will need to be made early next year on this issue. This issue <br />has been visited by them before so he asked the Manager to give a brief explanation. <br />John Link pointed out that it is very timely to reach agreement on student membership <br />capacity because we are now at a point where we can actually plan for schools beyond <br />elementary school #10. Given the increased cast, far whatever reason, we experienced with <br />not just school buildings, but other county buildings, it is critically important that we get a handle <br />on what the costs are going to be far future buildings and future expansions. The county has a <br />debt limit the Commissioners have established. We also have a commitment in the SAPFO to <br />carefully plan for these facilities as relates to the towns and the county providing certificates of <br />occupancy for new development to work in tandem. This really needs to be addressed within <br />the next 2 months. <br />Superintendent Pedersen said that class capacity has been discussed many times and <br />that this issue will not be resolved tonight but will be returned to the collaboration committee. <br />The question about who has the authority to lower class size and impact capacity, which then <br />impacts funding issues, has also been discussed and is a very legitimate issue. SAPFO calls <br />for a joint decision by both the County Commissioners and the School Boards about how to <br />determine capacity while taking guidance from the state. There has also been discussion in the <br />meetings about other school systems' compliance and what happens if we do not comply. The <br />enclosed information from Alexis Schauss, Chief, Information and Analysis and Reporting for <br />NCDPI indicates that there is widespread compliance with the 21-1 class size in K-3. It also <br />confirms class sizes in CHCCS are some of the highest averages across the state. There is no <br />waiver for non-compliance; however the penalty for willful non-compliance is the withholding of <br />the superintendent's salary. All school districts are required by law to meet these standards. <br />This does make a difference in our planning and that is the reason the managers are concerned <br />about this issue. In our case, if we look at capacity for K-3, using 21-1 (the new state standard) <br />versus 23-1 (the standard that is in SAPFO},the difference in just those four (4} grade levels is <br />just under 300 students or roughly half a school. <br />Superintendent Carraway said that because construction standards are part of the <br />decision about capacity, it is important to start discussion on this early on. When she has <br />looked at capacities that are lower in other districts, OCS decided to lower their standards early <br />on in the lower grades, and keep them higher in the upper grades. It is just a matter of where <br />you ChoOSe t0 focus. <br />AI Hartkopf said that when they start looking at footprints of schools, real estate casts <br />more in the southern part of the county. As to SAPFO and the capacity issue, Mebane did not <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.